Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the crucial qualifier that no trading occurs and that the destructive aspect is the strategy_id=0 unlink, which is exactly the context the raw hint does not convey. It leaves unstated what happens when an account already tracks a different strategy (overwrite vs. reject) and whether permissions are required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight clauses with zero filler: purpose first, downstream use second, the unlink sentinel and the id source last. Every sentence carries operational information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and the linking/unlinking semantics are covered. The remaining gap is edge behavior — reassignment when an account already tracks another strategy, or a requirement that the account be synced first.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: strategy_id=0 means unlink (a sentinel value nowhere in the schema) and account_id is sourced from list_portfolios' 'accounts' group. Both parameters acquire actionable meaning beyond their bare integer type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: it links an account to a strategy for tracking, and explicitly names the downstream consumers (describe_drift, drift alerts) that make the link meaningful. The scope qualifier 'Tracking only — nothing is traded' distinguishes it from the build_*/solve_* strategy siblings without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent when this matters (to enable describe_drift and drift alerts) and gives the unlink path via strategy_id 0, plus where account ids come from ('list_portfolios' accounts group'). It stops short of explicit when-not/alternatives (e.g. sync_external_account for account registration), so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.